ISLAMIC PRINCIPLE OF AFFORDABILITY
Balancing Individual Idealism and Collective Pragmatism
IN the realm of Islam, an essential doctrine emerges from both the Quran and Hadith. This doctrine directs that all commands within the faith are rooted in the concept of “possibility” for all individuals. Simply put, responsibility in God’s religion is contingent on one’s capability. It is not in alignment with God’s wisdom to burden anyone beyond their means. This principle applies both to individuals and society at large.
Scholars of Islamic jurisprudence unanimously concur that the fundamental condition for fulfilling a religious duty is one’s ability; hence, it is impermissible to impose an obligation upon someone who lacks the means to fulfill it.
This doctrine is underscored by numerous passages from the Quran and the practical model of the Prophet. For instance, God says in the Quran “God does not impose responsibility on anyone except according to his strength.” (2: 286)
Capacity, in this context, implies possessing the ability, strength, or power to execute a physical or mental task for a specific action. It refers to the aptitude or capability for a particular activity, encompassing both physical and mental aspects.
As per Muslim scholars, ability signifies one’s capacity to undertake an action with their body or wealth. This capacity evolves as people’s circumstances change, yielding different outcomes.
The principle of doing as much as possible resonates throughout all aspects of life. It’s a universal principle—in this world, one’s capacity to act is always conditioned by external factors. Without the alignment of these external conditions, actions remain unattainable.
Furthermore, individual and collective obligations are distinct. At the individual level, one has complete autonomy over personal matters and can adhere to their moral compass. For instance, each person can strive to act justly according to their position. Conversely, establishing a system of justice at a societal level requires collective effort. The former relies on an individual’s authority, while the latter hinges on the collective authority of society. An individual’s responsibility extends only as far as their capacity allows; they are not accountable for matters beyond their control. The greater one’s capability, the greater their obligation in the eyes of God. For example, while there is a command under normal circumstances, to perform ablution and pray, a person who is sick or in a place without water should perform tayammum (dry ablution) and pray.
Collective matters differ fundamentally. These pertain to social affairs that involve many individuals. In the context of society, consensus on an approach is essential to avoid conflict. Imposing an external approach on society is bound to foster disagreement, leading to discord, increased animosity, and ultimately, violence. The desired outcome may remain elusive, resulting in turmoil instead.
The solution lies in distinguishing between individual quality and collective feasibility. This can be succinctly encapsulated as “Idealism at the individual level, pragmatism at the social level.”
Today, this principle of affordability aligns with result-oriented action, emphasizing practicality in contemporary discourse.
